NAFR

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

15/05/2026

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State.

2. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 14.02.2026 passed by respondent No.1/State Government, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner seeking premature release/remission of remaining jail sentence under Rule 358 of the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968 has been rejected on the basis of the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board and the nature of the offence, despite the fact that the petitioner has remained in custody since 24.03.2011 and has already undergone the requisite period of sentence including remission.

3. The petitioner has filed the present petition with the following prayer:-

10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 14.02.2026 passed by Respondent No. 1.

10.2 Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 14.02.2026 passed by Respondent No. 1.

10.3 Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case for premature release strictly in accordance with law.

10.4 Direct reconsideration within a time-bound period, preferably within 60 days.

10.5 Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted also.

4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by judgment dated 24.03.2011 passed in Sessions Trial No.37/2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.). Against the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.407/2011 before this Court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 26.05.2017 affirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. Thereafter, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.5930 preferred by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court also came to be dismissed on 18.04.2022. Since then, the petitioner has remained continuously in custody from 24.03.2011 onwards.

5. Further case of the petitioner is that after becoming eligible for consideration of premature release/remission upon completion of the requisite period of sentence including remission, the petitioner submitted an application dated 15.05.2024 before respondent No.3/ Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg seeking grant of remission/premature release. The said application was forwarded along with favourable recommendation under prescribed Proforma ‘A’ and also with favourable opinion/no objection furnished by the learned trial Court vide communications dated 21.03.2025 and 29.05.2024. Thereafter, respondent No.3 forwarded the complete case of the petitioner along with all relevant documents to respondent No.2/Director General, Jail and Correctional Services for placing the matter before the State Sentence Review Board. However, respondent No.1, by the impugned order dated 14.02.2026, rejected the claim of the petitioner for premature release on the basis of the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board and the nature of the offence, which has been assailed in the present writ petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is wholly arbitrary, non-speaking and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, (2025 SCC OnLine SC 482) and Laxman Naskar v. Union of India and Others, (2000) 2 SCC 595. He would further submit that while considering an application for remission/premature release, the comp